[KR...]

read all about it here :

http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/...asuesyou.shtml

 

[royboy2k]

I wonder how many people they will sue... maybe I will know one of them!

 

[Mr.PD]

Good thing I like music from small labels. Which labels are part of RIAA? I want to be sure and not buy their products.

 

[AngusMcToon]

My theory is that the RIAA discovered it was more popular than Microsoft, and has launched an aggressive publicity campaign to remedy the situation.

 

[gloco]

Thanks for the article KR...,

[Rant]I think its complete ******** that their going to go after individuals based on how many mp3's their sharing on programs like kazaa. What are they gonna do? Knock my door down and haul me off 3am? What are they gonna charge the thousands of people that will be arrested or sued? Or are they going to sue a few college kids? Is Grandma going to jail for her 10,000 elvis presley mp3 collection? Are they going to serve 21 to life sentences?

Or are we going to get served a subpeona while in class or work? Should i be paying royalties for the artist who got screwed out of millions by their own recording company? Now, that's something artists should look into.

I loved this part from the article:

"The answer is the DVD-Audio disc that sounds that much better, often has a few bonus tracks on it, has interviews with the band and more."

MY ASS! It's not going to happen. The music industry in the USA is the ****ing laziest group of whiners i've ever seen. Poorly packaged cds, horrible audio quality, horrible selection of new artists and they charge upwards of $20 for this trash (all for forty or so minutes). The Japanese and European music industry seem to always get everything that we lose out on. We get the **** end of the stick.

I could go on a 4 letter rant for the next hour regarding the RIAA and ********** like Lars Ulrich [/Rant]

 

[jlo mein]

it has been said here first:

"gloco, the leader of the rebellion against the RIAA"

 

[Drathen]

I thought people were legally able to download music as long as they either erase the song or purchase the album after 24 hours... If this is true then how can the RIAA sue people for making their files available for sharing? Doesn't make sense.

 

[Polygon]

Honestly, the RIAA can kiss my ass. I am fed up with them. They are one of the main reasons I download Mp3s. Now they now how it feels to be screwed, hell they have been screwing artists for years. I hope the record industry falls to ground. How do they think they are going to sue me anyhow? What proof do they have? They would have to come to my house and see my hard drives; which are removable, they can disappear quite easily. Yeah, I might have over 4000 Mp3s, but I still buy CDs, in fact I recently bought five CDs.

 

[CaptBubba]

What do they hope to get out of it? I mean, it isn't like the people trading mp3s are full of money. And it isn't going to make a dent because everyone will think "oh, that won't happen to me" and most will probably be right. They can't sue everybody...well, they can but they would go broke from all the legal fees.

Maybe if they took the money they are paying their lawyers with and put that toward pushing SACD or maybe making some music worth buying they would be able to stop the decline in revenue they now see. Oh, wait! Logic doesn't apply, this is the music industry. Fake pop stars make money while good artists starve, makes sense to me!

But I really don't care. Let them haul some 19 year old college kid into court. The media would love it, especially given this whole thing that they have been tossing around with worldcom and enron about how buisnesses don't care about wrong or right, that they just want to screw the average person out of their money. I really can't see how RIAA v. 19-year-old-kid-who-can't-afford-to-buy-cds is going to leave the RIAA with a good reputation.

I just want my damn music, is that too much to ask?

 

[skippy]

people with large cd collections should just download mp3's of songs they already have on cd. let the RIAA pursue them, and then waste their resources.

who wants to bomb the RIAA?

 

[kelly]

It's funny how similar the arguments you guys make are to the arguments video game pirates make.

The fact of the matter is that downloading tons of software you didn't purchase is indeed illegal. We did already know this, didn't we? This isn't what's changing.

What's changing is enforcement. In the past, the SPA, RIAA and countless other organizations have persued primarily those who intended to seek a profit from piracy. It was pretty rare that they'd bust some kid for downloading Quake.

However, they did from time to time bust bulletin board systems that hosted lots of pirated video games. I knew a few people who were busted and a few others who were very near misses. None of these guys charged money. Simply put, the anti-piracy associations and the FBI sought to make examples of those who chose to DISTRIBUTE.

This is happening now with music. The only difference is that whereas before it was only some 31337 d00d who ran a BBS full of cracked PC games, people who share their mp3 files are average joes.... and there's a lot of them... and some of them aren't even aware that it's illegal. but then again, ignorance of the law has never prevented an arrest.

And really, that's the only thing to be upset about in my opinion--that this thing they've decided to enforce is very popular. I question our representative democracy when I see extremely popular ideas illegalized. Obviously the average joe doesn't think he's screwing the record companies when he downloads or shares an mp3 (much like he doesn't see the harm in lighting up a doobie in the privacy of his own home).

Aside from my anarchist-libertarian point of view, the other thing upsetting to me is the RIAA's absolute stupidity in that they are throwing away money they could be gaining now by selling software in the format and method in which many people seem to prefer it--and money that they could make in the future by essentially destroying their own industry. If there were a book called "How to Destroy the Music Industry", the record labels would be following every word of it.

Sometimes I wish we had anti-stupidity counter-legislation, whereby if you decide as a big corporation to do things that harm yourself financially and harm the industry as a whole, a committee would come in, shut down all your lawsuits and put you in counselling.

 

[gloco]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly Sometimes I wish we had anti-stupidity counter-legislation, whereby if you decide as a big corporation to do things that harm yourself financially and harm the industry as a whole, a committee would come in, shut down all your lawsuits and put you in counselling.

Couldn't have said it better.

 

[grinch]

wow kelly, you really hit the nail on the head there.

if i hear one more whining person complaing about the riaa i'm going to puke blood. HEY GUESS WHAT, IT'S ILLEGAL. that whole ******** should've been ended years ago with napster. in fact, years and years ago, when i first saw napster, when i first saw the program and realized what it did i thought "wow, this is going to be gone soon." the first thought in my mind "use it while you can, because it's going to be gone in a month" and then nothing. two years later, after months and months of delayed court ******** it gets crapped on and then everybody switches to a clone. if napster shared only pirated software, would it have lasted more than a month? would the owner (now a multi-millionaire) still be living in a mansion somewhere, or would he be in prison? guess what, they're both copyrighted things! WHOA! so why aren't they being treated the same?

i am not all for the riaa; i think copy-protection of cds is just a horrendous an idea as i think downloading mp3s with some dumb file transfer program. they are definitely making dumb decisions, but of course america is showing a dumb attitude as well.

and for the record: i will get an ulcer from laughing too hard the day i see anybody getting sued by the riaa, including anyone on this board or any other, reguardless of their age.

p.s. thanks again to kr, king of the unbiased source links!

 

[Beagle]

Some of you are very naive. You don't think your internet use can be monitored or taken away if you abuse it?

I am tired of lazy bastards who think that they are entitled to everything for free.

Why don't you stop paying taxes?

Those corrupt governments have been ripping you off for years. Why don't you revolt against them?

Steal your food, hydro/electricity, cable and clothing while you're at it

 

[acs236]

The question of "whether downloading mp3s or computer software IS illegal" is a lot less interesting than the question "SHOULD downloading mp3s/computer software be illegal"

Many people, including myself, think that copyright protection in this country, and the world in general, is out of line with its intended purpose. In the United States, copyright, as a constitutional matter, is meant to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts." "Progress of science" has been interpretted to include things like music, art, computer software.

Let's use Windows 95 as an example. To promote the progress of science, we granted Microsoft and monpoly to exploit their software -- Windows 95. Once the copyright term expires, it is to go into the public domain where others will be able to use it freely and learn from it. The problem is, the copyright term for EVERYTHING (that is, all "works made for hire") is now 95 years, meaning Windows 95 won't go into the public domain until the end of this century. I think as practical matter, Windows 95 is obscelete now, and will cease to have any useful purpose at the end of the century. At least if it were public domain now, young pgorammers could learn something from it, quite possibly without posing any threat to Microsoft, which is three generations or so beyond it.

Here is a link to info on a case that the Supreme Court will be reviewing:

http://www.law.asu.edu/HomePages/Kar...ightExtension/